The Oscars air Sunday, which means we're almost done
with one of our most annoying annual traditions: complaining about the Oscars.
Like clockwork, the run-up to the show always inspires plenty of handwringing about
how the three-hour-plus broadcast needs to be improved. And then, after the
show's over, there's a breathless new litany of think-pieces detailing all the
things that need to be done differently next year so that the fiasco we've just
witnessed never happens again.

Advertisement

But
it's all crazy talk. Yes, the show is too long. Yes, it's too stuffy. And yes,
it's too behind the times. But no, I wouldn't change a thing. Because
everything that's wrong with the Oscars is actually everything that makes them
great.

The
most popular mantra about What's Wrong With The Oscars is that they're just not fun enough! Evan
Shapiro, the former president of IFC, which airs the Independent Spirit Awards
the night before the Academy Awards, most encapsulates this attitude. A couple
of years ago, he wrote an article entitled "The Oscars:
21 Fixes for the Show So It's Less Boring," where he noted, "Each year, those of us who go to the Sprits and are not
invited to the Oscars the next night watch the Oscars from home and note how
less fun they seem—even (or maybe especially) for those who are actually
there." His suggestions? Liquor. Severely limit the screen time for technical
categories like cinematography and editing. And: "Make the winner [for the Best
Score] sing their speech to the soundtrack they created. It won't save time,
but it would be AWE-SOME."

Advertisement

The
reason why people like Shapiro get away with writing such inane articles is because
they operate under the smug, lazy assumption (now seemingly universally shared)
that everybody prefers award shows that are sophomoric and/or ironic. ("Hey, my
wacky suggestions may be terrible, but at
least they're more fun than those stodgy old Oscars!")

This
philosophy partly explains why we've recently seen an increased profile for
shows like the Indie Spirits and Golden Globes, which flaunt their irreverent
attitude. (When the Globes selected Ricky Gervais as their host a few years
ago, the idea was that it would be a roast-style attack-fest, as different as
one could get from the prim, respectful Oscars.) But what's overlooked is that
the reason why those programs are the way they are is because they're never going to be the Oscars. Online commenters can
write about how "fun" the Golden Globes are—look at how everyone's drinking and
letting down their hair!—but the fact is no one respects the Golden Globes. An
Academy Award is the grownups table—the symbol of being recognized as the best
in your field—and so the Oscars can afford to be a bit stuffy.

To
me, the central problem with the Oscars of recent vintage is that they don't
want to own their stuffiness. Instead, they've become too prone to tinkering. Consider
the fact that in 2010, the Oscars switched the number of Best Picture nominees
from five to 10, soon after shifting it again to allow anywhere between five
and 10 nominees—an example of the Academy actively messing with the formula, not
because it wanted to harken back to the 1940s when there was an expanded Best
Picture field but because it wanted to court more viewers.

Sponsored

Has
it worked? Who knows? That uncertainty creates anxiety for the Academy, which spends
a lot of time worrying about the show's ratings. (After scoring approximately
55 million viewers in 1998 when Titanic,
a colossal hit, was the night's big winner, the show has rarely gotten as many
as 45 million viewers since, usually hovering around 40 million or less.) Just
like Oscar prognosticators, the telecast's planners are always wondering how the show
could be improved—i.e., they're constantly pondering how to lure in more of the
18-49 demographic that's the holy grail of TV viewership. As a result, one year
the Academy will try to make the Oscars "classier" by picking a host who's a
handsome, dignified, all-around entertainer, like Hugh Jackman in 2009. Then, it'll
shift course and try to go super-hip, like in 2011 with Anne Hathaway and James
Franco, or last year with Seth MacFarlane. And then the Oscars will opt for
someone less "provocative" and more genuinely likeable, which would seem to be
why Ellen DeGeneres is back hosting the show this year.

Because
the ratings haven't significantly shot up as a result of these changes to the
host or the number of Best Picture nominees, there's a growing perception that
the show is in trouble, losing cultural relevance to the other major award
programs that have been much more actively retooling in the last decade. The
Tonys have upped their cool factor by having Neil Patrick Harris host, making
him an awards-show sensation in the process. The Emmys have worked hard to
provide more of a variety-show feel, and likewise the Grammys have greatly
reduced the number of awards presented on-air, focusing instead on live
performances.

Advertisement

Advertisement

By
comparison, the Oscars are still a pretty formal affair, which leads lots of
commenters to insist the telecast get with the program and copy those other
shows. "If Neil Patrick Harris doesn't host the Oscars soon, then it's time for
Hollywood to pack up and call it a day," E!'s
Mark Malkin declared in 2013, as if the fate of the entire film industry
rests on hiring the latest buzz-worthy MC. Similarly, because Amy Poehler and
Tina Fey have had great success hosting the Golden Globes the last two years, they've
been asked if they'd ever consider doing the Oscar telecast. Their answer was pretty revealing: "I would never want to do it,"
Fey said. "I think that's just a much harder, much more time-consuming job and
a much more intimidating room. Even though it's a lot of the same people, they're
just really nervous that night. That night is career-making or -breaking for
people. Scary."

More
than any other awards show, the Academy Awards radiate suspense and tension.
This is why I've never minded the fact that the telecast goes on way too long, predictably
extending beyond their three-hour timeslot by about 30 minutes on average: The
show's lumbering, starchy tone makes for an almost unbearable pressure-cooker
environment.

Not
everybody sees it that way. "There is absolutely NO reason this show cannot be
done in 150 minutes," complains Shapiro. "The Golden Globes finishes in 3
hours, but covers BOTH TV AND FILM." Yeah, but that show only gives out 14
awards, as well as a lifetime achievement honor. The Academy Awards present 24 prizes—and
while programs like the Grammys are delegating more and more awards to a
ceremony before the broadcast, the Oscars give out all their competitive prizes
during the show, even making the outcome of, say, Best Animated Short Film a
major event.

Advertisement

Maybe
that's why an Oscar acceptance speech is the most memorable of all award
ceremonies. Other shows will boast viral-worthy clips the next morning of
something funny that happened, but the Oscars have speeches and moments that
last long after the broadcast. Forty years later, we still remember Sacheen
Littlefeather appearing on
stage to refuse Marlon Brando's Best
Actor Oscar for The Godfather.Eleven years after it happened, Michael
Moore's acceptance speech for Best Documentary is still talked about for the
fact that he took the opportunity to blast
George W. Bush's approaching Iraq War—and got booed by liberal Hollywood.

I'm not saying that the Academy Awards can't be
improved. If I were in charge, Billy Crystal would never be allowed near the
Dolby Theatre again. (And the scripted banter between the presenters is slow
death and must go.) But those cosmetic changes ultimately don't matter. Whether
it's the suggestions from outsider observers or the Academy itself, the Oscars
are always going to be this slightly unwieldy beast that never pleases
everyone. And that's good: For all its supposed lack of hipness in the face of
other shows, the Academy Awards know what they are—and what they aren't. But
what's telling is that we actually care about
such seemingly trivial debates when it comes to the Oscars. All those years of
ceremonies and stars have left an impression on us, giving us a sense of
ownership over something that's deeply ingrained in our collective psyche, even
though you and I have no control over it at all. What other awards show can
make such a claim? That's what those who want to "fix the Oscars" don't
understand: We don't need another Golden Globes. Now more than ever, we need the
Academy Awards.

Tim Grierson is Playboy for iPhone's critic-at-large.
He
is the vice president of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association and the
author of "FilmCraft:
Screenwriting." Follow him
on Twitter @timgrierson